Story of a couple of neighbours

One man with a kindly face, let's call him Mr. T used to do business with the man next door. He would sell him various things and the man next door was quite wealthy, he and his wife would regularly go on overseas trips and always wore excellently fitting suits. When they were away they'd have a nanny looking after the children. The man next door, let's call him Mr. R, had quite a family of kids. However he was rather cruel to them. Sometimes they would have nothing much to eat, sometimes he or the nanny would beat them, lock them in a room and hurt them again and again, and threaten them. Well this is what the kids told Mr. T, but he wasn't so sure that they hadn't provoked Mr. R. After all, the kids used to loved Mr. R, and he thinks the kids have some other friends who tell them what to think. He tries not to notice the blood, the screams and the fact that the odd kid has scrambled into Mr. T's yard looking for refuge and keeps hiding.

This has been going on for some time and the oldest kid (Master M) had had enough and has the support of the other kids to boot their father out. However, the father threatened the kids to be on his side, he told the nanny to beat them up unless they say how much they love Mr. R. Mr T. doesn't believe Mr. R would do such a thing and that it is lies spread by the outsiders, he says the oldest kid and Mr. R need to sit down and sort things out. However, when Mr T. leaves, Mr. R gets the nanny to try to catch Master M, put him in his room and gives him a thrashing for being obstinate and ungrateful. After all Mr. R has led the household for 28 years.

Things with Mr. R have been getting more difficult though. Some of Mr. R's kids have told others that a couple of the kids have been killed by the nanny or other staff, and the kids are sick of nearly starving all the time while Mr and Mrs. R go off to Italy, Egypt or the like. Mr. T says that the kids and Mr. R need to sort it out, and continues to try to help. Mr. R just tells the kids to behave or they will be thrashed, beaten, locked up and maybe something worse will happen to them.

The story isn't over though, because Mr. T has given up worrying about Mr. R's family. It's a surprise really because Mr. T and the club he belongs to used to care a lot about them 30 or so years ago when the nasty Mr. I looked after them, and treated them all as second class citizens and beat them up if they didn't stay in their place. Mr. R said they were equals and was somewhat loved for that.

Mr. T just thinks it is up to the kids to sort out whether Mr. R is head of the household or not, he doesn't care that Mr. R is armed, his nanny and housekeepers are armed, and he has killed a couple more kids to emphasise that he is in charge. The funny thing is the kids had a vote on it, and Mr. R told them that if they voted for Master M. they would all be thrashed severely, maybe even maimed or killed. Mr. R said they wanted him anyway. That was good enough for Mr. T.

Mr. T is happy believing Mr. R that the kids who he beats, starves, tortures, maims and kills want him to still run the household. He still sells Mr. R food, electricity, petrol and the like, and still has social meetings with him. He wont help the kids, they should figure it out for themselves.

Shame it's not fiction

The arts are too important to state subsidise

An excellent article in the Daily Telegraph by conservative columnist Simon Heffer (who is regularly disagree with) today argues forcefully for the arts, but equally so that state subsidies are corrosive not conducive to civilising society.



He talks of the view of composer James Macmillan:



"He observed that we are trapped in "a cultural regime which adjudicates artists and their work on the basis of how they contribute to the remodelling, indeed the overthrow of society's core institutions and ethics"; or, in sum, the view that "anything that is not Left-wing is intrinsically and irredeemably evil".



Furthermore: "He would tell me how he would attend meetings of the Society of Composers and sit aghast as profoundly untalented people sat around complaining about the lack of state funding for their "jobs". (George) Lloyd, who had hardly ever received a penny in public subsidy in his life, could not grasp this mentality."


If people wrote music that others wanted to listen to, they would not need a cultural welfare state. As Mr MacMillan has found, they go out and buy CDs, they attend public performances, and reward excellence by patronage.


Lloyd went further: he always argued that if the state paid composers to write what they liked, they would write self-indulgent rubbish."


So state subsidies can fund rubbish, no surprise there - you are forced to pay for what you don't like, as if it is "good for you".



However Heffer argues that while the moral case for ending state subsidies is clear, the arts do need money:



"I cannot, to use an old cliché, see why bus drivers should pay taxes so that I can have a subsidised seat at Covent Garden. However, I am equally convinced that, if the arts are not subsidised in some way, we shall career ever more quickly down the path to being a nation of philistines."



By that he means tax credits, I'd argue that it would be better simply to lower taxes generally so that the arts, like all other activities would be better able to thrive as people would have more money to spend on what they enjoy.



It is always curious how those who despise elitism and business success are all too keen to force elitism onto taxpayers in the form of the subsidised arts. It is a vile concept that someone who is an "artist" deserves to be paid money by force from those who simply don't like what they produce. Why can't artists that produce what nobody is willing to pay for simply be allowed to fall by the wayside?



"Those "artists" who feel the state owes them a living, and who in return embark on the destructive project Mr MacMillan so rightly identified, would have to learn the difficulty of having no merit. State funding in its present form encourages this poison in our culture and in our society. One day, we might have a Culture Secretary with the sense, and the moral vision, to reform it."

The ACC deception

So Labour says National will privatise ACC - oh I wish.

ACC Minister Maryan Street made this absurd statement:

"Putting the world-respected ACC scheme up for sale will rob all New Zealanders of the security they have enjoyed in the event of accidents, wherever and however they occur, for several decades"

*

Hold on a minute.. "world respected"? Where in the world has the government abolished the right to sue for personal injury by accident and replaced it with a state owned insurance monopoly which pays everyone the same for any accident regardless of fault? Exactly. It was investigated and abandoned in Australia and the UK.

*

"the security" she talks about is illusory. ACC is fine if you are at the top of your career and an accident robs you of the ability to undertake that work. You'll get paid off as long as is necessary. However if you were, for example, a medical student and an accident destroys your ability to be a surgeon then tough - you don't get compensated for lost future earnings, but for lost current earnings. If you are a child and get crippled by a car accident, it's the same. So much for security, and never forget that the ACC state monopoly gives you no choice - you have to pay whether or not it is adequate for your needs.

*

Now yes ACC advocates will say you don't need a lawyer, it's fast and the risk of losing a case isn't there. However, hold on I'm not saying people shouldn't take out accident insurance. They certainly ought to choose that, and then pay according to what the insurer sees is the exposure. For example, a young person who has little driving experience and plays contact sports will pay a high premium, but a middle aged person with no claims and a clean driving record will probably be rewarded. ACC does none of this. ACC does not penalise the accident prone or reward the cautious - it charges all the same, except for employers by category. However "good" employers pay the same as "bad" employers.

Street goes on "Once National has traded away the protection the current state monopoly offers, accident compensation will become a lottery" Well hold on, how is it a lottery to pay premiums to the company of your choosing according to your own risk? Isn't it a lottery as to whether ACC is adequate for your needs or not? Why should ACC pay the criminal teenager who cripples himself in a burglary the same as the teenager who is biking safely hit by a reckless driver?

She quotes a Merrill Lynch report saying it is more expensive in other countries than NZ, yet the truth behind those figures is hard to extract. For example, what does a person get for being blinded or made quadraplegic in Australia compared to NZ? In other words, is the reason ACC is cheaper on first look because it IS the el cheapo option in terms of paying out?

It is interesting to take this point "the report found that without ACC - and under a scenario similar to that in Canada, the US and Australia – roughly 70 per cent of current ACC clients would only receive benefits through social security and the public health system, a significant erosion of the support they now get. ... individuals would be forced to take out private insurance in the event they fall off a ladder or injure themselves in a rugby game - and be left without accident compensation if they don’t.

Amazing, so the rest of us wouldn't be forced to insure ourselves against a rugby injury if we don't play the game? That's what the rest of the world offers - insurance based on your own risk. ACC socialises all risk and payments - so we all pay the same and receive in kind!

In addition:

- In other countries compensation is a single lump sum or series of lump sums, in NZ payments can continue for years and years while people are considered "unable to work". Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party candidate Michael Appleby has often said he is on ACC, it seemed to be the case election after election.

- In other countries not everyone who has an accident gets compensation. If you accident saw off your finger in other countries, unless you are insured for that, you wont get anything. In New Zealand you get paid. In other words, in New Zealand ACC pays you for being stupid or negligent, the rest of the world doesn't unless you pay to be insured on that basis.

It would be interesting to analyse further. Street just assumes.

She quotes a PWC report that says ACC is "best practice". Funny how nobody else adopts that. I have accident insurance now in the UK, if I was in NZ again I wouldn't rely on ACC for my own accident insurance - because I'd want a lot more than what it offers. However, Street may answer this?

Why shouldn't those who pay ACC pay less for no claims and more for risky behaviour?

Why shouldn't those who pay ACC pay more for higher levels of cover if they wish?

Meanwhile, I'm going to read this PWC report and examine what it is about - it deserves closer scrutiny to find out what questions were asked and which ones were not asked.

UPDATE: According to Stuff John Key confirms National will open up the ACC employer accounts to competition, WHICH the PWC report mentioned above says could, if properly regulated, result in improved outcomes and efficiencies. So let's be clear, Labour will oppose it, but its own report says there may be advantages in doing what National is proposing. However National wont privatise ACC, but the left somehow thinks opening the government sector up to competition is privatisation - maybe it fears no one will want to do business with the public sector if given the choice?

RUC f'up

Now I am not opposing the increase in Road User Charges, as long as it is transparently justified by the cost allocation model used to determine what all road users should pay to recover what is paid in road maintenance and construction costs.

Remember also that with all fuel excise duty now fully dedicated to the National Land Transport Fund (something I would have thought Labour should be crowing about), it means that the proportion of road spending paid by diesel vehicles dropped below what was appropriate, so the increase is likely to be justified (i.e. a diesel car shouldn't pay more for road use through RUC than a petrol car through petrol tax, on average).

However to lie to Tony Friedlander, the long standing chief executive of the Road Transport Forum - the main trucking lobby group - about RUC, is outrageous. Tony is a smart guy, though he was once Minister of Works under the Muldoon administration. If Annette King has said, "Look Tony, we wont give you notice anymore", he wouldn't have liked it, but at least she wouldn't have gone back on her word. Furthermore her own press release is deceptive, as it almost implies that only vehicles up to 6 tonnes face the increase, by only referring to examples up to that weight and attaching a document about vehicles up to that weight.

Of course what this means is that operators wont buy RUC licences in advance to avoid the increase, as has been done successfully in the past (and if managed well does provide a sudden cashflow advantage that could be invested wisely).

So something that arguably is justified as an increase has become a political nightmare by deception and sleight of hand.

Lynchers may be brought to justice

CNN reports that some new evidence has been found related to a 1946 lynching case in Georgia, USA.

On July 25, 1946, two black sharecropper couples were shot hundreds of times and the unborn baby of one of the women cut out with a knife at the Moore's Ford Bridge.

And in the days following the massacre, residents of the community about 40 miles east of Atlanta, Georgia, were tight-lipped with federal agents sent by President Truman to investigate.

Georgia state representative Tyrone Brooks has said "they think there was enough evidence in FBI files at the time to bring a case against the suspects. He said his group has identified five suspects in the slayings who are still alive."

If this proves to be the case, a handful of elderly men (they are likely to be in their 80s or so) will plead how unfair it is and cruel it would be to try, convict and imprison them.

No.

As long as the evidence stacks up, these men should be forced to fear the consequences of their action. Their families and friends should know what they did, and the lives of other elderly murderers should remain ones tinged with fear that their final years will be in disgrace, alone and behind bars.